SFA lost appeal judgement today on interim interdict gained by Parks of Hamilton in August

mdingwall

Administrator
Main point was that the judge got his interpretation of the SFA rules wrong - three appeal judges sitting in the highest court in Scotland rejected that in the Court of Appeal.

This stems from arbitration. When it goes to SFA they should note to any and all interested parties. They argued that was wrong.

This was granted to Parks in August.

The SFA represented by their third QC in this series of hearings. The SPFL QC did not appear, Parks and Rangers were represented by QCs.

There is still to be a substantive hearing on the issues covered in the interdict. But that may not happen if the SFA walk away from the case.
 
Main point was that the judge got his interpretation of the SFA rules wrong - three appeal judges sitting in the highest court in Scotland rejected that in the Court of Appeal.

This stems from arbitration. When it goes to SFA they should note to any and all interested parties. They argued that was wrong.

This was granted to Parks in August.

The SFA represented by their third QC in this series of hearings. The SPFL QC did not appear, Parks and Rangers were represented by QCs.

There is still to be a substantive hearing on the issues covered in the interdict. But that may not happen if the SFA walk away from the case.
So, to be clear in my wee mind, that means that if this does proceed to arbitration then Parks of Hamilton are entitled to be represented? I think that's what this tells us. Wonder if cinch are entitled to be represented as well - if they even care?
 

Rangers chairman Douglas Park claims second victory in legal dispute over SPFL’s £8m cinch sponsorship​

Untitled-design-2021-10-20T144219.771.png

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has won a second victory in a legal dispute over the SPFL’s £8 million sponsorship deal with online car retailer cinch.

The businessman’s company, Park’s of Hamilton, obtained an interim interdict to prevent the SFA proceeding with an arbitration process involving Rangers, the SPFL and cinch.

Rangers chairman Douglas Park, of Park's of Hamilton

Rangers chairman Douglas Park, of Park's of Hamilton
The Scottish champions are currently refusing to allow cinch’s branding on team shirts or an advertising boards.

Mr Park believes that the deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his firm, Parks of Hamilton, and Rangers.

The SPFL have referred the matter for arbitration to the SFA.

On Wednesday, lawyers for the SFA addressed the Inner House of the Court of Session - Scotland’s highest civil appeal court.

The SFA’s legal team told judges Lord Carloway, Lord Pentland and Lord Woolman that the decision to grant the interim interdict was incorrect.

Lawyers for the SFA believed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a place in the arbitration process because it wasn’t a member of the SPFL.

Parks of Hamilton’s legal team told the court that the decision to grant interim interdict was made correctly and that the SPFL’s own rules entitled Rangers to refuse to display cinch’s’ branding.

They also argued that Parks of Hamilton should have a role in the arbitration process.

After hearing the submissions, the judges agreed with the submissions made by Parks of Hamilton and refused to overturn the lower court’s decision.

Lord Carloway, who as Lord President is Scotland’s most senior judge, ordered the SFA to pay Parks of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing - the sum which will be paid is not known.


I WANT MOR Morelos told to up his game as Gerrard tells him five in fifteen isn't enough


Earlier in the year, a Park’s spokesperson welcomed the court’s decision to grant the interim interdict saying that the SFA had no other option but to involve it in the arbitration process.

The spokesperson added: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton has been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.

“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules.

“This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.”

At another hearing in the case, the SPFL’s lawyer, Lord Keen of Elie QC told the court that bosses at Rangers had spoken to cinch about renaming the club’s stadium ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’

However, a spokesman at the club said no negotiations took place.

On Wednesday, advocate Garry Borland QC, who is acting for the SFA, said it was wrong for interim interdict to be granted.

He said that laws surrounding arbitration showed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a role in the process.

He added: “In the present context Rangers Football Club Ltd are members of the SPFL and they are therefore required by virtue of article 196 to comply with the SPFL rules.


BIG OFFER Get £20 risk FREE BET on Rangers v Brondby plus 22-1 bet builder tip with Paddy Power


“The petitioner, Parks of Hamilton, is of course not a member of the SPFL and is hence is under no obligation to comply with the SPFL rules.

“Membership of the league will mean the clubs will have to be bound to comply with certain things including the articles of the SFA.

“Parks of Hamilton is not subject to or bound by those rules. It follows that Parks of Hamilton is not party to contract of the dispute referred to in the arbitration.”

Gavin MacColl QC, for Parks and Hamilton, said that the commercial issues brought up by the matter meant that it was only right for the company to participate in the arbitration process.

He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox.

He added: “An individual club that is a member of the SPFL does not require to comply with overarching contracts entered into by the SPFL with advertisers, if to do so were to place the individual club into breach of prior contractual obligations.

“In these circumstances, the commercial reality of this is that from the petitioner’s perspective and any objective perspective - is that the dispute is something best resolved with all of the parties that have a clear interest participating in that process and being bounded by that process and avoiding the possibility of the sort of divergent views and divergent orders that could be made if one process having taken place between Rangers and the SPFL alone the petitioner here is sought to go to court to vindicate its own contractual position and other parties such as cinch are forced to take similar steps - that sort of approach makes very little commercial sense.”

Announcing the court’s decision, Lord Carloway said he and his colleagues would issue a written judgement explaining their reasoning.

He added: “We will give our reasons in writing in early course - hopefully within the next week or so.

“But we are satisfied… that there is no reason upon which we can reverse the Lord Ordinary’ decision and we will refuse the reclaiming motion.”


Keep up to date with ALL the latest news and transfers at the Scottish Sun football page


Scots tot takes first steps to Rangers songs while watching TV
 
To be honest cinch couldn't have dreamed of getting this kind of publicity. They'll be loving the exposure they're getting.
Probably content staying out of it right now, getting the publicity, before cancelling the contract and getting sponsorship £ back off the SPFL

The publicity they’ll get from cancelling the contract will be priceless too
 
The fact that the SFA even let it get this far is a joke. They put their idea up, we said "this isn't gonna work for us", the SFA rather than trying to resolve the matter and come to an agreement just went full clueless.
SPFL was it not?
They then went to their big brother complaining that a big boy hit them and asked him to sort us out. The big brother then proceeded to make a can't of himself.
As far as I can tell, that's where we are at present.
 

Rangers chairman Douglas Park claims second victory in legal dispute over SPFL’s £8m cinch sponsorship​

Untitled-design-2021-10-20T144219.771.png

RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has won a second victory in a legal dispute over the SPFL’s £8 million sponsorship deal with online car retailer cinch.

The businessman’s company, Park’s of Hamilton, obtained an interim interdict to prevent the SFA proceeding with an arbitration process involving Rangers, the SPFL and cinch.

Rangers chairman Douglas Park, of Park's of Hamilton's of Hamilton

Rangers chairman Douglas Park, of Park's of Hamilton
The Scottish champions are currently refusing to allow cinch’s branding on team shirts or an advertising boards.

Mr Park believes that the deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his firm, Parks of Hamilton, and Rangers.

The SPFL have referred the matter for arbitration to the SFA.

On Wednesday, lawyers for the SFA addressed the Inner House of the Court of Session - Scotland’s highest civil appeal court.

The SFA’s legal team told judges Lord Carloway, Lord Pentland and Lord Woolman that the decision to grant the interim interdict was incorrect.

Lawyers for the SFA believed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a place in the arbitration process because it wasn’t a member of the SPFL.

Parks of Hamilton’s legal team told the court that the decision to grant interim interdict was made correctly and that the SPFL’s own rules entitled Rangers to refuse to display cinch’s’ branding.

They also argued that Parks of Hamilton should have a role in the arbitration process.

After hearing the submissions, the judges agreed with the submissions made by Parks of Hamilton and refused to overturn the lower court’s decision.

Lord Carloway, who as Lord President is Scotland’s most senior judge, ordered the SFA to pay Parks of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing - the sum which will be paid is not known.


I WANT MOR Morelos told to up his game as Gerrard tells him five in fifteen isn't enough


Earlier in the year, a Park’s spokesperson welcomed the court’s decision to grant the interim interdict saying that the SFA had no other option but to involve it in the arbitration process.

The spokesperson added: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton has been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.

“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules.

“This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.”

At another hearing in the case, the SPFL’s lawyer, Lord Keen of Elie QC told the court that bosses at Rangers had spoken to cinch about renaming the club’s stadium ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’

However, a spokesman at the club said no negotiations took place.

On Wednesday, advocate Garry Borland QC, who is acting for the SFA, said it was wrong for interim interdict to be granted.

He said that laws surrounding arbitration showed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a role in the process.

He added: “In the present context Rangers Football Club Ltd are members of the SPFL and they are therefore required by virtue of article 196 to comply with the SPFL rules.


BIG OFFER Get £20 risk FREE BET on Rangers v Brondby plus 22-1 bet builder tip with Paddy Power


“The petitioner, Parks of Hamilton, is of course not a member of the SPFL and is hence is under no obligation to comply with the SPFL rules.

“Membership of the league will mean the clubs will have to be bound to comply with certain things including the articles of the SFA.

“Parks of Hamilton is not subject to or bound by those rules. It follows that Parks of Hamilton is not party to contract of the dispute referred to in the arbitration.”

Gavin MacColl QC, for Parks and Hamilton, said that the commercial issues brought up by the matter meant that it was only right for the company to participate in the arbitration process.

He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox.

He added: “An individual club that is a member of the SPFL does not require to comply with overarching contracts entered into by the SPFL with advertisers, if to do so were to place the individual club into breach of prior contractual obligations.

“In these circumstances, the commercial reality of this is that from the petitioner’s perspective and any objective perspective - is that the dispute is something best resolved with all of the parties that have a clear interest participating in that process and being bounded by that process and avoiding the possibility of the sort of divergent views and divergent orders that could be made if one process having taken place between Rangers and the SPFL alone the petitioner here is sought to go to court to vindicate its own contractual position and other parties such as cinch are forced to take similar steps - that sort of approach makes very little commercial sense.”

Announcing the court’s decision, Lord Carloway said he and his colleagues would issue a written judgement explaining their reasoning.

He added: “We will give our reasons in writing in early course - hopefully within the next week or so.

“But we are satisfied… that there is no reason upon which we can reverse the Lord Ordinary’ decision and we will refuse the reclaiming motion.”


Keep up to date with ALL the latest news and transfers at the Scottish Sun football page


Scots tot takes first steps to Rangers songs while watching TV
Sorry to derail thread, ut the video below of wee boy taking first steps to every Saturday we follow. Hahahah
 
All this is a problem manufactured by the spfl. They are costing Rangers money to fight their incompetence and they’re also creating bad PR for the club. It’s all just blatant corruption which helps our rivals. Celtic placement in the spfl/SFA don’t care that it costs their organisation money, because it helps celtic. Hampden needs levelled.
 
“In these circumstances, the commercial reality of this is that from the petitioner’s perspective and any objective perspective - is that the dispute is something best resolved with all of the parties that have a clear interest participating in that process and being bounded by that process and avoiding the possibility of the sort of divergent views and divergent orders that could be made if one process having taken place between Rangers and the SPFL alone the petitioner here is sought to go to court to vindicate its own contractual position and other parties such as cinch are forced to take similar steps - that sort of approach makes very little commercial sense.”
I mean this is so blindingly obvious it is clear the SFA/SPFL are simply on a campaign to get Rangers, I know we all know that but still!
 
I can’t find anything on google strangely. He had a touchline ban or something which celtc took to court and the SFA caved because they said they didn’t have money to fight it.
As in they didn't have enough money in the "everyone else" pot and they daren't borrow from the "Rangers" pot. God forbid they were ever caught short when it came time to come after us
 
This is the bit I like the best:

"Lord Carloway, who as Lord President is Scotland’s most senior judge, ordered the SFA to pay Parks of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing - the sum which will be paid is not known."
Lord Carloway finding in favour of Douglas Park (and by association Rangers). Who would have thought it

SFA/SPFL must be very weak if he can’t find a way of supporting them
 
You reckon? So they would prefer their name mentioned in court proceedings rather than their name emblazoned on the shirts, stadium and social platforms of Scotlands Premium Football Club?
They’re mentioned in court over a sponsorship deal gone bad due to the failure of Square Heid and his Tàrrier puppet master it’s not like they’re in court for covering up 50 years of child abuse
 
  • Like
Reactions: o7o
All this is a problem manufactured by the spfl. They are costing Rangers money to fight their incompetence and they’re also creating bad PR for the club. It’s all just blatant corruption which helps our rivals. Celtic placement in the spfl/SFA don’t care that it costs their organisation money, because it helps celtic. Hampden needs levelled.

If you read the report you will see Park was awarded legal costs
 
Big Chief Bearstalker from Twitter.

The other hack in Jack Irvine's Punch (Chris McLaughlin) and Judy (Martin Williams) show, where Jack wrote the script and e-mailed it out to the actors to run a Rangers Truth Doomed show for the kiddies.

he is a maggot that man! Has at least 2 Twitter accounts that he followed me on and got blocked on both!
 
The fact that the SFA even let it get this far is a joke. They put their idea up, we said "this isn't gonna work for us", the SFA rather than trying to resolve the matter and come to an agreement just went full clueless.
Outrageous that the SFA took such a hostile stance where they are supposed to be a mediator. Heads should roll for this.
 
SPFL’s lawyer is Lord Keen of Elie QC.

That's the former Lord Advocate who made a total arse of the Charles Green prosecution and who was in Sturgeon's pocket during the Salmond enquiry.

Talk about a nest of vipers.
He is also the guy who won a case for Rangers when we went to Court over the SFA's illegal transfer ban all those years ago IIRC.
 
The appeal judges disagreed with the original judge
No. They agreed with the original judge.
Quote: ‘But we are satisfied… that there is no reason upon which we can reverse the Lord Ordinary’ decision and we will refuse the reclaiming motion.”
 
Back
Top